FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!SPREAD WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY!

"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Some Thoughts on the Subject of "Unity"

There is a great deal of talk in the western world lately, most of it
specious in my opinion, on the importance of “unity” along with
denunciations of “division”. Much of this has been aimed at the current
American president, some even setting up non-stop live stream sessions
of people chanting, “you will not divide us”. For most of these people, I
have no doubt, it is nothing more than the latest, fashionable,
mindless talking point because, under other circumstances, they love
nothing more than dividing people. They love dividing people so much
that when they have exhausted existing divisions, they invent completely
new ones to focus on. There have long been racial divisions, ethnic
divisions, religious divisions and of course political divisions but in
many parts of the world those were no longer sufficient. In much of
Europe, for example, everyone in a given country was the same race and
ethnicity, so there were no divisions there. Most people had given up on
their own religion and had generally prohibited religious division
anyway (when northern Europe became officially Lutheran the Catholic
Church was quickly banned) so there was nothing to do on that front.
Even in the area of politics, liberalism had won the day and no
alternative was given serious consideration.

Obviously, given such a situation, the only thing to do was to import
people of different races, different ethnicities, a different religion,
though, because the government was behind this, people who could be
expected not to immediately shake the boat when it came to politics. In
the “battle of the sexes” the fight had pretty much ground to a halt.
The feminists had won. They got the vote, they got disposal marriage,
they got abortion, they got tax-payer funded birth control and so on.
Women live longer than men, are now more educated than men and, as
usual, are not imprisoned like men. They are even putting women in
combat units, on warships, even in submarines and when your feminist
devotion is pushing you to fight for the right to spend over a month
sealed in a metal tube hundreds of feet under water, cheek by jowl with
dozens of unwashed men breathing recycled farts and body odor, you are
most likely running out of things to demand. So, new divisions had to be
invented, like the “transgender” phenomenon. Now we get to argue over
which bathroom can be used by someone who claims to be a woman but who
still has a penis.

Obviously, I doubt the sincerity of people who claim to want unity, who
chant “better together” while also arguing that “diversity is strength”.
For those who may be slow in the etymology department, the root word of
“diversity” is “divers” which comes from Latin via the French for
“separate” or, in other words, “division”. Claiming you want unity while
arguing that divisions make us stronger is rather nonsensical to put it
mildly. However, unity is something that everyone claims, at least, to
be thirsting for. You have people on the far left marching in the street
championing unity, though of what sort I honestly have not the first
clue, while on the far right you also have people arguing for unity
which, agree with them or not, at least seems to make more sense when
one looks at their program which generally includes making societies
more homogenous in one area or another. It is rather complicated. The
far-right basically says that birds of a feather should flock together.
The far-left seems to be saying that we should always be creating new
divisions only to then ignore them but even then, only in certain areas
while not ignoring them in others. The same people who say “race is a
social construct” are the same ones who push racial quotas. Don’t ask me
to explain it. These are, by the way, usually the same people who
complain about how huge the gap is between the very rich and the very
poor while simultaneously importing more extremely poor people every
year. Go figure.

Why do I bring this up here? Because, once upon a time, monarchists
tended to list greater unity as being one of the perks of having a
monarchy. In the past, and perhaps still today though it is doubtlessly
declining, there was polling data to back this up. There was more social
cohesion in countries which had a monarch as their Head of State. This
was traditionally explained by pointing out that modern constitutional
monarchies have a head of government who is a partisan, political figure
but a separate Head of State who is a non-partisan, non-political,
totally impartial figure who is tied to everyone in the country by way
of history, culture and tradition. All of that is true, however, it has
been increasingly less effective as the monarchy itself has been the
cause of division in a number of countries. Some people wish to maintain
the monarchy while others actively campaign to abolish it and turn
their countries into republics. Australia is an example of this as is
Spain. To a lesser extent, one could say the same of Canada. In that
country the monarchy is largely ignored but when it is brought up,
immediately one sees divisions between those who support the monarchy
and those who want it abolished as an outdated relic of their colonial
history as part of the British Empire.

The problem relates back to one that we have touched on here before. For
most of our history, the monarchy was a source of unity other than the
occasions in which the monarchy itself was fought over in succession
disputes. However, that all began to change with the French Revolution
and the proliferation of mass-politics, representative government and,
to put it simply, liberalism. Prior to the revolutionary period,
politics as we know it today did not exist. The monarch ruled and
policies came and went depending on the situation, what worked and what
did not. The people may have liked certain policies and disliked others
but there was little to no ideological divisions in society. Then came
the revolutionary period, then came liberalism and suddenly everyone was
involved in politics, suddenly there were political parties at war with
each other in every country. Suddenly there were ideological factions
battling for control of the government. It became impossible for many
people to evaluate policies based on their effectiveness because they
were blinded by their ideological loyalty. However, it was still
possible for there to be unity around the monarch because the monarch,
where they still reigned anyway, was above all of that tumult.

Today, however, we are seeing that this situation has its limits. The
liberal model, as I have said before, is based on a sort of social
contract. It is based on a set of rules that everyone must abide by in
order for the system to function. If one side decides not to follow
those rules, the system breaks down. It functions only so long as
everyone agrees to keep it functioning. We are now seeing the same
applied to monarchy. Yes, the monarch can be a source of great unity and
a real strength in that regard but only so long as everyone agrees to
bow before the throne. In the old days, this was not an option. The
monarch ruled and if you in any way opposed this you were a traitor and
would be dealt with rather harshly. Today, under the liberal system,
this is no longer the case. You are, in most monarchies, free to oppose
the monarchy and so the monarchy ceases to be a source of unity and
becomes an object of division. This is not, obviously, the fault of the
monarchy but rather the fault of the liberal system as a whole.

The Dual-Monarchy of Austria-Hungary is often pointed as an example to
illustrate a number of points, good and bad. By the time it had become
“Austria-Hungary” it clearly represented something rather out of step
with the rest of most of its contemporaries. The American diplomat James
W. Gerard famously observed, “That extraordinary empire known as the
Austrian-Hungarian Dual Monarchy is less an Empire or a Kingdom or a
State than the personal property of the Habsburgs, whose hereditary
talent for the acquisition of land is recorded on the map of Europe
today!” Gerard was somewhat accurate in this observation, given that he
was looking from a modern perspective at a political entity which had
evolved from a different era. There had, of course, been efforts to
foster greater internal unity in the past but these met with fierce
resistance and ultimately failed. Back when it was still, nominally, the
“Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” the Emperor Joseph II tried to
enforce German as the official language for all people in his polyglot
empire but was not successful. Ultimately, all that did unite the
peoples of Austria-Hungary was their shared loyalty to the Habsburg
monarchy. Germans, Magyars, Slavs, Protestants, Catholics, Jews and
Muslims all coexisted so long as loyalty to the Crown was enforced.
Without that, there was nothing to hold them together and what had been
Austria-Hungary divided and then divided further.

Another illustrative case is the Russian Empire. Russia, after all, was
the last major power among the Christian countries to be an absolute
monarchy. Prior to 1905 there was no constitution of any sort, no
elected national assembly, no political parties or anything of the sort.
There was simply the Czar, his word was law and there existed no higher
authority beyond the Czar to which one could appeal save for God.
Today, people tend to laugh or roll their eyes when they hear of how
Czar Nicholas II resisted power-sharing in a constitutional monarchy by
pointing to his British cousins as his “nightmare scenario”. People find
it funny that the Czar seemed to think the British were in a terrible
situation because of their political system while he had to deal with
periodic uprisings, terrorist attacks and a seemingly unending string of
assassinations. However, this is to miss the point of what the Czar’s
perspective was. He was thinking not of how peaceful or moderate the
country was overall but rather at the institutionalized divisions of the
British government, at the ideological warfare going on between the
Labour Party and the Tories which this manifested. Russia may have had
very serious problems of its own, but things were more clear cut. The
Czar was the “Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias” and he decided
what direction the country would take and you were either with him or
against him and that was that.

It may be that this traditional sort of political system is so far
removed as to be beyond the capacity of your average, modern person to
fully grasp but it was, I assure you, once taken for granted as being
the norm. The important point that should be grasped, however, is that a
constitutional monarchy, as part of a liberal society, is not immune
from harm and cannot but be effected by the sea that it swims in. Today
this is becoming all too noticeable given how the liberal mask is
starting to slip ever more and we see just how little they truly believe
in what they have so long claimed to champion. This matters because, so
long as liberals maintained their adherence to the rules of the game,
it was possible to argue for a largely ceremonial monarchy as being of
great practical benefit. If, however, the current trend continues in
which liberals become increasingly overt in suppressing all opposition,
only a robust, traditional monarchy will suffice. Personally, I am
content to allow the liberals to go on with their hysterics as they are
helping to prove the point that any compromise with them is impossible.
If they want to play the game of ‘either we suppress you or you suppress
us’ then, I for one am perfectly open to suppressing them. At that
point, unity can be achieved.

DAILY NEWS- Scroll Thru The Latest News

Archbishop Lefebvre

“This Second Vatican Council Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.”

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Archbishop Lefebvre

“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. ….Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion.”

TRADCATKNIGHT FORUM

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON TUMBLR!

TCK Facebook

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON PINTEREST

Archbishop Lefebvre

That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...

Fr. Hesse Summary on Vatican II

Vatican II = Heretical & Schismatic

Exposing Vatican II & New Mass, Fr. Villa

Archbishop Lefebvre

“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible'-these things we do not accept."

Traditional Quotes & Prayers

The Real 3rd Secret of Fatima

Inlcudes Vatican II and the soon Apostate Church..."...because Fatima is a very apocalyptic message. It says that no matter what happens there are going to be terrible wars, there are going to be diseases, whole nations are going to be wiped out, there are going to be 3 days darkness, there are going to be epidemics that will wipe out whole nations overnight, parts of the earth will be washed away at sea and violent tornadoes and storms. It's not a nice message at all." Fr Malachi Martin

SSPX Marian Corps Donations

Marian Corps-Australasia

Fr. Chazal

Fr. Girouard

Or send a cheque made out to Fr. Patrick Girouard at : P.O.Box 1543, Aldergrove, BC, V4W 2V1, Canada.

St. Marcel Initiative

Or, if you prefer, in the U.S., make your contribution by telephone, toll free: 855-4-S. Marcel (855.476.2723), or internationally, by sending your donation directly to donations@stmarcelinitiative.com via PayPal.

TCK TESTIMONIALS

Eric Gajewski, Founder of DefeatModernism(formerly known as Defeat the Heresies)

Resistance Forum

True Traditionalist Forum

Pope XII: “Suicide Of Altering the Faith In Her Liturgy…..”

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'"

ALEXA RANK

Find The Rank Of Any Website

Current Crusaders Online Worldwide (RealTime)

St. Bernard:

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!

How secure, I say, is life when death is anticipated without fear; or rather when it is desired with feeling and embraced with reverence! How holy and secure this knighthood and how entirely free of the double risk run by those men who fight not for Christ! Whenever you go forth, O worldly warrior, you must fear lest the bodily death of your foe should mean your own spiritual death, or lest perhaps your body and soul together should be slain by him.

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; and likewise the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Now it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory--to have conquered a man while yielding to vice, and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you!

But what of those who kill neither in the heat of revenge nor in the swelling of pride, but simply in order to save themselves? Even this sort of victory I would not call good, since bodily death is really a lesser evil than spiritual death. The soul need not die when the body does. No, it is the soul which sins that shall die.

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port.

Once he finds himself in the thick of battle, this knight sets aside his previous gentleness, as if to say, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord; am I not disgusted with your enemies?" These men at once fall violently upon the foe, regarding them as so many sheep. No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume on their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them the victory.

.

.

Saint Athanasius

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ..."You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. "Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."